Re: two world clocks AND Time after Time

2005-01-25 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Clive D.W. Feather writes:
Poul-Henning Kamp said:
 [That is, if the equinox was actually on March 9th, would anyone outside
 the astronomical community notice?]

 I doubt it.

 I'm not so certain about the summer and winter solstice however.
 here in the nordic countries were're quite emotionally attached to
 those.

Hmm, that's because you actually get midnight sun and midday night (or
approximations like the White Nights).

That is probably how a foreigner would say it.  We would tend to say
it's because it's so bloddy dark all winter :-)

But given that these dates move a day or two each year anyway because of
leap year effects, you wouldn't notice the drift without being told.

More superstition is attached to those, so people might not take it
(as) lightly.

And talking about superstition...

The NeoPagans will demand that we rotate Stone Henge to match.

The UFOlogist will insist that we turn the Great Pyramid accordingly.

And just wait until the astrologers find out...

Poul-Henning

--
Poul-Henning Kamp   | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer   | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.


Re: two world clocks AND Time after Time

2005-01-25 Thread Steve Allen
On Tue 2005-01-25T09:57:46 +, Clive D.W. Feather hath writ:
 I think you're out by a factor of 10. Would the Man On The Clapham Omnibus
 be able to identify the solstice or equinox to within 14 days? Other than
 knowing the conventional dates?

 [That is, if the equinox was actually on March 9th, would anyone outside
 the astronomical community notice?]

The answer is in Duncan Steel's book Marking Time
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0471298271.html

The answer is yes, and it is evident in the orientation of churches
in England built before and after the English calendar reform in 1752.

Churches were built oriented to sunrise on their saint's day.
In 1752 the calendar shifted, and sunrise shifted.  Additions made to
pre-reform churches were oriented to sunrise on the new saint's day.
The result was crooked churches.  Steel counts 81 such churches
within Oxfordshire alone.

--
Steve Allen  UCO/Lick Observatory   Santa Cruz, CA 95064
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Voice: +1 831 459 3046 http://www.ucolick.org/~sla
PGP: 1024/E46978C5   F6 78 D1 10 62 94 8F 2E49 89 0E FE 26 B4 14 93


Re: two world clocks AND Time after Time

2005-01-24 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tom Van Baak writes:

Another observation is that our local newspaper always
prints Sun and Moon rise and set times. But not time
of noon. Why is this? Maybe it's just our paper (noon
implies sun and we don't see much of it here in Seattle).

Why is the instant of sunrise or sunset of popular value
while the high point of noon isn't. What does this suggest
about the risk of allowing noon to wander an hour over
the span of 1000 years?

Several countries have codified sunrise and sunset as when
traffic needs to light up.  In Denmark while cars and
motorbikes are lit up at all times, bicycles and horses
must be lit up from sunset to sunrise.  There are similar
rules for vessels on water I belive.

 Month is entirely conventional in its meaning.
 Year is entirely conventional in its meaning.
 So soon day will be entirely conventional in its meaning.

Can you explain this more? I can see how Month
would be conventional, or even entirely conventional
but are year and day also such extreme cases?

The Year represents when the constellations repeat their performance,
but the precision of this is wrecked by the leap-years, so it is
only conventional these days.

It seems to me the popular understanding of a year
is accurate to +/-1 day. And the popular understanding
of noon is accurate to +/- 1 hour or two. Does that make
them entirely conventional?

Seen from an astronomical point of view: yes, you can't point your
telescope with it.

 The trick will be to educate the general public that 12:00 means
 slightly less about where the sun is in longitude than the Gregorian

Sure, but it seems to me - regardless of the timezone,
regardless of daylight saving time, regardless of the
season, regardless of latitude, to the general public
12:00 means lunchtime (or their VCR got unplugged).
The sun doesn't have much say about it.

Fully agreed.

I would even venture to claim that a lot of todays teenagers are
only mildly aware of the noon -- more light outside connection :-)

--
Poul-Henning Kamp   | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer   | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.


Re: two world clocks AND Time after Time

2005-01-24 Thread Steve Allen
On Mon 2005-01-24T00:50:10 -0800, Tom Van Baak hath writ:
 Isn't knowing when noon is already a specialist operation?
 I mean, most people could tell you when noon is to within
 an hour or two or three, but finer than that requires a far
 amount of daily mental calculation, no?

Noon has long required a calendar, an almanac, a longitude, and the
ability to perform addition and subtraction.  This has long been
something that could be presumed within the abilities of any locality
big enough to call itself a town.  The tasks of business, payroll,
and banking demand that much.

Sunrise and sunset have required haversines.  That's why the
newspapers publish them.  Trigonometry was not required for simple
civil life.

--
Steve Allen  UCO/Lick Observatory   Santa Cruz, CA 95064
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Voice: +1 831 459 3046 http://www.ucolick.org/~sla
PGP: 1024/E46978C5   F6 78 D1 10 62 94 8F 2E49 89 0E FE 26 B4 14 93


Re: two world clocks AND Time after Time

2005-01-24 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Allen writes:
On Mon 2005-01-24T00:50:10 -0800, Tom Van Baak hath writ:
 Isn't knowing when noon is already a specialist operation?
 I mean, most people could tell you when noon is to within
 an hour or two or three, but finer than that requires a far
 amount of daily mental calculation, no?

Noon has long required a calendar, an almanac, a longitude, and the
ability to perform addition and subtraction.

You forget a lawyer or at least a copy of the relevant laws in your
area, because surely you're not assuming that my watch runs on UTC ?

--
Poul-Henning Kamp   | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer   | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.


Re: two world clocks AND Time after Time

2005-01-24 Thread John Cowan
Steve Allen scripsit:

 What we are being told by the Time Lords is that, starting from a date
 in the near future, knowing when noon is will also be a specialist
 operation.

Already true.

For many months of the year, solar noon is closer to 1 PM, or even 1:30
PM, in a great many countries, and how many people actually realize
*that*?

--
Winter:  MIT,   John Cowan
Keio, INRIA,[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Issue lots of Drafts.   http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
So much more to understand! http://www.reutershealth.com
Might simplicity return?(A tanka, or extended haiku)


Re: two world clocks AND Time after Time

2005-01-23 Thread Steve Allen
On Thu 2005-01-20T14:59:18 -0700, Rob Seaman hath writ:
 Leap seconds are a perfectly workable mechanism.  Systems
 that don't need time-of-day should use TAI.  Systems that do need
 time-of-day often benefit from the 0.9s approximation to UT1 that UTC
 currently provides.  Let's stop pretending that *both* atomic time and
 time-of-day are not needed.  Instead, let's direct our efforts toward
 implementing improved systems for conveying both of these fundamental
 timescales to users of both precision and civil time.

On Sat 2005-01-22T20:43:51 -0500, Daniel R. Tobias hath writ:
 Now, if a time standard is to be defined based solely on constant SI
 seconds, with no reference to astronomy, then why even include all
 the irregularities of the Gregorian Calendar, with its leap year
 schedule designed to keep in sync with the Earth's revolutions?  It
 really makes no sense that TAI includes days, years, and so on at
 all, and this will seem particularly senseless when the current date
 by TAI is a day or more removed from Earth-rotational time, as will
 happen in a few millennia.

 What is really needed is two different time standards:  a fixed-
 interval standard consisting solely of a count of SI seconds since an
 epoch (no need for minutes, hours, days, months, and years), and a
 civil-time standard that attempts, as best as is practical, to track
 the (slightly uneven) motions of the Earth.

Of course there are other units of time in civil history which have
been converted from actual representations into conventional ones.

Sailors have no qualms about calling out the next high tide
in terms of local civil time (now practically based on UTC).
They all know that the times shift by around an hour every day.

The month lost its connection with the moon early in the Roman era.
Everybody knows, and in general nobody cares, that the moon is not new
at the beginning of a month in the Gregorian calendar.

The Gregorian year is pretty good, but three millenia hence the vernal
equinox will have drifted discernably from the original intent.  In
general nobody cares about the date of Easter that much, and (as seen
in Duncan Steel's book) even some of the best astronomers have not
understood the distinction between the tropical year (as popularly
defined by Newcomb) and the Vernal Equinox Year that Pope Gregory's
calendar actually aimed to match.

Above Rob Seaman and Danial Tobias have echoed some of the issues
discussed by Essen himself in his autobiographical work Time for
Reflection which his son-in-law has reproduced at

http://www.btinternet.com/~time.lord/

In particular, this footnote

http://www.btinternet.com/~time.lord/TheAtomicClock.htm#_msocom_1

(and the entire chapter containing it) reveals that the tension
between the physicists and the astronomers (notably Stoyko, who has
largely been written out of history) was great enough that there
almost became two SI units for time, one being the second based on
the day, and one being the Essen based on the cesium resonance.

But Essen claims for himself (in both this autobiography and in
Metrologia
http://www.bipm.org/metrologia/ViewArticle.jsp?VOLUME=4PAGE=161-165
) the credit for recognizing that the existing systems of time
distribution (and now presumably extended to time computation)
basically cannot be expected to tolerate the existence of two kinds of
time.  I don't think this is really true anymore, but it is admittedly
costly.

It was the astronomers who first made the mistake of counting a truly
uniform time scale using the calendrical/sexagesimal notation
originally based on earth rotations (and now concisely communicated
using ISO 8601).  It was the physicists who pushed to continue the
practice.

Knowing the tides is a specialist operation, and has always been.
Knowing the phase of the moon is a specialist operation, and has been
in western culture for over two millenia.
What we are being told by the Time Lords is that, starting from a date
in the near future, knowing when noon is will also be a specialist
operation.

Month is entirely conventional in its meaning.
Year is entirely conventional in its meaning.
So soon day will be entirely conventional in its meaning.

All of them become predictable, albeit upon examination silly,
extensions of things which originally meant something else.

The priesthood of astronomy has become irrelevant to the general
populace, and the priesthood of the physicists has taken precedence.

The trick will be to educate the general public that 12:00 means
slightly less about where the sun is in longitude than the Gregorian
calendar date means about where the sun is in latitude.  Both of these
schemes fail, it's just that atomic time fails by a full hour within
1000 or so years whereas the Gregorian calendar fails by a full day
only after another 2000 or so years.

I really like sundials, mean solar time, and the analemma.
I think it is disingenuous to use the methods we see being used by the
atomic clock keepers to 

Re: two world clocks

2005-01-21 Thread Seeds, Glen
 -Original Message-
 From: Leap Seconds Issues [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 On Behalf Of Poul-Henning Kamp
 Sent: January 21, 2005 3:40 AM
 To: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL
 Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] two world clocks
...
 ... What
 reliable evidence do we have that programmers are screwing up UTC
 left-and-right?

 Until two years ago Microsoft Windows got it wrong for Denmark.

I can believe they got the time zone wrong. That has nothing to do with
leap seconds, and would not have been solved by abolishing them.


 UNIX has a continuous timescale with no room for leap seconds
 which is supposed to be UTC.

The POSIX clock is explicitly and deliberately not aligned with UTC or
any other absolute time standard. Facilities for converting the system
clock to local time are implementation-specific.

This was not an oversight. Considerable analysis went into understanding
how this would work. The bottom line is that it's not a problem for all
but a very few applications, which have ways to work around it. These
same applications have timekeeping synchronization costs that are far
larger than the costs of these workarounds.

  /glen

   This message may contain privileged and/or confidential information.  If 
you have received this e-mail in error or are not the intended recipient, you 
may not use, copy, disseminate or distribute it; do not open any attachments, 
delete it immediately from your system and notify the sender promptly by e-mail 
that you have done so.  Thank you.


Re: two world clocks

2005-01-21 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
om, Seeds, Glen writes:

This was not an oversight. Considerable analysis went into understanding
how this would work. The bottom line is that it's not a problem for all
but a very few applications, which have ways to work around it. These
same applications have timekeeping synchronization costs that are far
larger than the costs of these workarounds.

One of the better arguments for getting rid of leapseconds is seen
by printing this page:

http://david.tribble.com/text/c0xlongtime.html

And then marking all the stuff that would not be necessary and remove
all the support for optionally represented leapseconds.

There is a lot less left afterwards.

--
Poul-Henning Kamp   | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer   | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.


Re: two world clocks

2005-01-21 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Josep
h S. Myers writes:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

 instead of in front of it.  As a Dane that sounds smart because
 time in Denmark is still not UTC based but based on mean solar
 time because our parliament has not gotten around to fix it in
 the last 46 years.

Which just makes it the more curious that the Danish language version of
the last Summer Time Directive
http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoclg=danumdoc=32000L0084model=guichett
specifies the start and end times of summer time in UTC, whereas the
English language version
http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoclg=ENnumdoc=32000L0084model=guichett
says Greenwich Mean Time.

Who said anything about being consistent ?  :-)

--
Poul-Henning Kamp   | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer   | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.


Re: two world clocks

2005-01-20 Thread John Cowan
Rob Seaman scripsit:

 What exact future systems are we discussing that will both 1) require
 the use of Universal Time and 2) not require a definition of Universal
 Time that is tied to the rotating Earth?

*sigh*

LCT is currently tied to UTC, and converting a count of SI seconds to
a UTC time is currently (a) annoying and (b) depends on updating tables.

 Attempting to move the entire worldwide civil time system to a
 non-Earth based clock is equivalent to attempting to build a clock
 designed to run untended for 600 years - in effect, to attempting to
 build a millennium clock.  The alarm must be designed to ring in 599
 years time.

This is simply not true.  The LCT-TI offsets can be adjusted locally as and
when they individually start to be a problem.  No global changeover is required.

 Systems that don't need time-of-day should use TAI.

Wall clocks need to run in LCT, which is currently founded on UTC.  Most people
don't need precision time-of-day (which should be rightly called Earth angle
and measured in SI radians).  They just need there to be a rough correlation
between LCT and the sun, and several hours' discrepancy can be tolerated.
Just go to Urumqi, or Detroit if Urumqi is too remote.

 And most definitely, let's stop these inane and embarrassing closed
 door discussions among biased insiders.

Personally, I am a biased outsider.

 It ain't your clock - it's *our* clock.

Eh?  Who are you and who are we?

--
Not to perambulate John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the corridors  http://www.reutershealth.com
during the hours of repose http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
in the boots of ascension.   --Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel


Re: two world clocks

2005-01-20 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rob Seaman writes:

 Given that the average western citizen under 30 years already today
 can barely add up three items in the supermarket without resorting to
 their mobile phones built in calculator today, I think you can
 safely assume that you can do anything to the timescale 100 years from
 now.

Shouldn't we work to educate the public, not use their ignorance of
some issue as justification for degrading service?

Absolutely! but if you read your classics (relevant keywords: bread
and circus) you would not expect much success.

Poul-Henning Kamp also wrote:

 As a computer nerd I can fully appreciate the problems and cost of
 converting existing systems to cope with larger UT1/UTC difference,
 but that cost would be peanuts compared to the costs of implementing
 leap-seconds reliably in future systems that would need it.

I think you got the sign of my position wrong here:  The cost of
conversion has been used to argue _for_ keeping the leap seconds,
and I say that the cost of _keeping_ the leapseconds will be much
higher in terms of software development and testing.

I have yet to hear of a system that has
trouble handling leap seconds that wasn't poorly engineered in its
handling of time standards.  Why should the rest of us pay for some
project's bad requirements discovery, bad design and bad
implementation?  Imagine that the underlying time standards are,
indeed, changed.  Why should we have any greater expectation that the
same suspect engineers wouldn't make a mess of using the new standards?

The concern I have met from computing system owners is not that
they worry _if_ their system will handle leapseconds, but that they
don't know _how_ it will handle them.

The major problem with leapseconds in computer systems is that they
do not happen often enough to be testable, and for anything networked,
they are untestable unless we set up dedicated fake time NTP
servers (like Judah did for y2k), have reliable GPS simulators etc etc.

I saw one test plan for a major safety-of-life system were they
dropped leap second testing because the sheer enormity of doing so,
including fake GPS, DCF77 and NTP timesources where simply not
possible, some of them even illegal.

Their plan:  Hope leap-seconds are killed.

Ther fall-back plan: Shut down for an hour citing emergency
computer problems and take the political flack afterwards.  You
don't even want to know how much money that would cost in lost
throughput if leapseconds didn't happen an hour past midnight here.
No such relief for the asians.

Attempting to move the entire worldwide civil time system to a
non-Earth based clock is equivalent to attempting to build a clock
designed to run untended for 600 years - in effect, to attempting to
build a millennium clock.

No it isn't.  This is a rubbish argument and you know it.

No matter how reasonable Brahe, Keppler and Newton had been, no
matter how well they had worked out their plan, no matter how much
they had tuned it to their society, we would never have executed
it today according to their design without checking, double checking
and reevaluation of their premises.

And neither are our great^N-grandchildren going to.

We are not designing a new timescale to last 600 years here, we are
designing a timescale for the next century at best, and given the
statistics we should consider ourselves luck if it holds even half
that long before somebody finds something wrong with it.

If you want engineers to build systems that correctly incorporate
handling of some phenomenon, you don't require that this phenomenon
only be handled every half millennium.

It's not the frequency of the phenomena that is the problem, it's
the magnitude.

Nobody puts an entire IT department on call for a one second
event, you just can't justify the expense to top management and
more importantly, with half a years notice you can't budget for it.

But every IT manager would do so for an one hour event.  The really
smart ones will plan their three hours of maintenance to coincide
with the event.

Leap seconds are a perfectly workable mechanism.

For who ?  For astronomers ?  For computer programmers ?  For
risk managers ?  For insurance companies ?

Or do you mean because they're so small that most people just ignore
them and since we're in the center/western hemishere we mostly
get away it ?   Ask the asians what they think of having that
second in the middle of the day, then come back and call it
workable once more.

Let's stop pretending that *both* atomic time and
time-of-day are not needed.  Instead, let's direct our efforts toward
implementing improved systems for conveying both of these fundamental
timescales to users of both precision and civil time.  And most
definitely, let's stop these inane and embarrassing closed door
discussions among biased insiders.

It ain't your clock - it's *our* clock.

I agree, but we have to be realistic and either you are not
or you don't know what you need to be 

Re: two world clocks

2005-01-20 Thread Rob Seaman
John Cowan replies to my question:
What exact future systems are we discussing that will both 1) require
the use of Universal Time and 2) not require a definition of
Universal Time that is tied to the rotating Earth?
LCT is currently tied to UTC, and converting a count of SI seconds to
a UTC time is currently (a) annoying and (b) depends on updating
tables.
Civil time is indeed tied to Universal Time, and UT is defined to be
(basically) equivalent to Greenwich Mean Time.  This whole discussion
is about some obscure committee seeking to change a standard that was
founded, more-or-less in its current form, at the Longitude Conference
in 1884 (historical corrections welcome, but pick your nits somewhere
else).  The attendees of the Longitude Conference were high level
representatives of the world's great powers.  The attendees of the
obscure meetings related to the current leap second debate are
themselves obscure - well - nerds, like all of us reading this list.
To comment on your particular points:
a) Clearly I'm annoyed about other aspects of this situation than you
are.  Why should the annoyance of  members of the ITU matter more than
the annoyance of other parties?
b) Currently the tables are maintained and updated by members of the
precision timing community who should indeed be commended for their
excellent work over the last quarter century and more.  The proposal on
the table would require all 6+ billion of us to keep his or her own
tables up-to-date.  The current situation is better.
Wall clocks need to run in LCT, which is currently founded on UTC.
Most people don't need precision time-of-day (which should be rightly
called Earth angle and measured in SI radians).  They just need
there to be a rough correlation between LCT and the sun, and several
hours' discrepancy can be tolerated.  Just go to Urumqi, or Detroit if
Urumqi is too remote.
Isn't this just a wee bit arrogant?  (I toned that down from another
word starting with r.)  People need good sources of time for a
variety of reasons.  We are discussing a complete abandonment of the
provision of Earth rotation information to the civilian public
worldwide.  I won't belabor the point of why I think that is bad.  The
question is, why aren't the precision time keepers debating ways to
improve the delivery of time signals to the world community, rather
than debating how best to sneak through a proposal to degrade time
services?
It ain't your clock - it's *our* clock.
Eh?  Who are you and who are we?
I would think that is obvious.  You refers to a couple of dozen
temporal bureaucrats who likely don't care enough about this issue that
they find themselves playing politics with to even bother reading, let
alone replying to, this mailing list.  We refers to the six billion
(and growing) of the rest of us.
Civil time is a hell of a fundamental standard to be so whimsically
managed.  If there are improvements needed - in the short term - to the
standard, let's hear the evidence.  That long term changes are needed
is no surprise (see http://iraf.noao.edu/~seaman/leap for my analysis
of the situation), but what the hell is the hurry?
Rob Seaman
National Optical Astronomy Observatory


Re: two world clocks

2005-01-20 Thread John Cowan
Rob Seaman scripsit:

 b) Currently the tables are maintained and updated by members of the
 precision timing community who should indeed be commended for their
 excellent work over the last quarter century and more.  The proposal on
 the table would require all 6+ billion of us to keep his or her own
 tables up-to-date.  The current situation is better.

I don't understand that at all.  People who need Earth angle (and I am
*not* opposed to making that widely available) will need to pick up
a correction table from IERS, there's no doubt about that.  IERS will
continue in exactly its current mission, it's just that its output
will no longer affect the value of LCT.

And as for keeping tables up to date, that's exactly what programmers
(especially programmers of embedded systems) are complaining about having
to do now, just to track UTC and LCT.

 People need good sources of time for a
 variety of reasons.  We are discussing a complete abandonment of the
 provision of Earth rotation information to the civilian public
 worldwide.

Not at all.  We are simply abandoning the notion that LCT is the right
way to provide that information.

--
Henry S. Thompson said, / Syntactic, structural,   John Cowan
Value constraints we / Express on the fly. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Simon St. Laurent: Your / Incomprehensible http://www.reutershealth.com
Abracadabralike / schemas must die!http://www.ccil.org/~cowan


Re: two world clocks

2005-01-20 Thread Rob Seaman
Poul-Henning Kamp replies:
The major problem with leapseconds in computer systems is that they do
not happen often enough to be testable,
The current UTC standard allows scheduling leap seconds monthly.  Is
that frequent enough for you?  The question isn't whether a leap second
occurs.  The question is how frequently do opportunities for a leap
second occur.
I saw one test plan for a major safety-of-life system were they
dropped leap second testing because the sheer enormity of doing so,
And you are asserting that this is a system that would not have better
chosen an unsegmented timescale based on TAI?  Or perhaps this system
also has a requirement that no other glitches ever be allowed to occur
within the clocks?  What actual requirement did this system have that
equated the preservation of life with tracking UT1?  And if there was
such a requirement, are you not providing a strong argument for the
precision timing community to continue to provide an easily accessible
approximation to UT1?
Their plan:  Hope leap-seconds are killed.
Remind me not to rely on their system for my own safety.  So their
system requires a clock synced to civil time to keep people alive.
Does it also suspend a 500 kilo weight over the operator's console with
the rope connected to an alarm clock set to go off at  the end of June
and December?  We can pass anecdotes back-and-forth all day long.  Is
the ITU or some other organization pushing this change actually
compiling useful data on all these anecdotes?
Ther fall-back plan: Shut down for an hour citing emergency computer
problems and take the political flack afterwards.  You don't even
want to know how much money that would cost in lost throughput if
leapseconds didn't happen an hour past midnight here.
Yes.  I do want to know.  Or rather, I want to have confidence that the
bureaucrats pushing this silly initiative are actually investing in the
world-wide inventory of time users that is warranted by a scheme to
change every clock on the planet.
The systems which need UT1(-like) time are staffed by very smart
people.
The systems which need civil time are not.  Many of them don't know
that other parts of the globe have different time, fewer yet know what
the difference is.
Sounds like a great business opportunity.  There are large numbers of
much more obscure standards that programmers manage to get right.  What
reliable evidence do we have that programmers are screwing up UTC
left-and-right?  Couldn't we just invest in improving the NTP handling
of leap seconds and in implementing new time handling facilities
*before* we go about deprecating leap seconds?
Today my civil time is already up to one and a half hour wrong
according to solar time.  Scottland is debating making it up to two
and a half hour wrong in order to be in the same zone as most of EU,
and some of the new EU member states are discussing making it
one or two hours wrong in the other direction for the same reason.  On
average most of USA must be half an hour off center as well.
These are either periodic effects or constant offsets.  Leap seconds
are due to a secular effect.  That secular effect won't go away just
because some folks wish very hard.
The numbers we attach to civil time have nothing to do with noon,
mid-day and such mundane concepts.
They actually have very precise, closed form approximations to those
concepts.  Many of us like the equation of time.  Why throw it out?
Civil time does not have to be linked hard to the sun as long as it
doesn't change too fast.
Civil time is used for a myriad of purposes.  One might think that the
precision timing community would be an excellent choice of folks to
enumerate these various purposes.  This has not been demonstrated over
the past five years.  Rather we've seen one lame and lazy attempt after
another to avoid doing the detailed leg work needed before changing
such a fundamental standard.
On the other hand, astronomers and others that need UT1 will be able
to take the global timescale, (TAI, UTC or something else) and apply a
delta they pick up from a scientific entitity and use the result.
As you imply, a vast amount of astronomical software and systems would
indeed need to be modified quickly and reliably simply to preserve the
current functioning of our systems.
Today most of them already have to pick up a +/- 1second delta anyway,
No.  I would guess that most of them manage to work within the +/- 0.9s
approximation of UTC to UT1.  Entirely new code and systems would need
to be fielded.  And yet somehow the precision timing community doesn't
make it a priority to explore these new systems.  Could it be that this
is simply an attempt to dump the tracking of Universal Time back in the
laps of the original timekeepers, the astronomers?
Many of the people who need civil time still have a hard time with
leap years and daylight savings time, and since a lot of these people
inexplicably are tasked to implement and code life critical systems,
you should not task